Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, June 30, 1994 TAG: 9406300098
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A15 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: STEPHEN MOORE
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Yet all of those initiatives command consistently strong public support, according to public opinion polls - which suggests that the congressional leadership is as willing and able as ever to thwart the will of the people when it comes to matters of money. It also suggests that, given the current composition of Congress, the chances for real fiscal reform are highly remote. Republicans contend, predictably, that the way to end fiscal gridlock is to elect a Republican Congress. As indeed, the evidence does suggest that that could help. Republicans generally have recorded better taxpayer-protection scores than Democrats.
But those who believe that a Republican Congress is a cure-all for the fiscal gluttony in Washington are likely to be disappointed. In the early 1980s, the GOP did have control of the Senate. As Ronald Reagan can frustratedly confirm, only on rare occasions did Republican senators exhibit much fiscal fortitude - and in some cases they were the biggest obstacles to cutting spending. More recently, Republican Sen. Pete Domenici has led the opposition to more budget cuts this year. So Newt Gingrich's enthusiasm notwithstanding, electing Republicans to office is not enough to stop the fiscal bleeding in Washington.
If we truly want to get government spending under control, much more important than changing the party controlling Congress is reducing the length of congressional careers via term limits. New research indicates that the longer a member has been in Congress, the worse is his or her voting record - and that is true of members of both parties. Longevity on Capitol Hill and spending restraint are about as compatible as a dog and a fire hydrant.
Term limits will not involve just a cosmetic change in Congress, as some opponents charge. (Indeed, if term limits were merely a cosmetic change, we wouldn't see the avalanche of opposition from the parasite economy in Washington.) In his marvelous book on Congress, "The Culture of Spending," political analyst James Pain demonstrates that the worst taxers and spenders in Congress are those with more than 20 years of legislative experience. First- and second-termers are about 20 percent more frugal with taxpayers' money than are senior members, according to the National Taxpayers Union.
That relationship is underscored by recent votes on Capitol Hill. If only members of Congress with less than six years tenure had voted on the balanced-budget amendment, it would have passed by a comfortable two-thirds margin in the Senate and the House when it was voted on earlier this year. Similarly, the Penny-Kasich spending-reduction bill would have passed overwhelmingly in the House if only those with three terms or less had voted. A to Z has its strongest support among freshman members.
The careerists in Congress are also much more likely to vote for tax increases than are newcomers. The freshman Democrats in Congress were the only major group in that party to vote nay on Bill Clinton's record $250-billion tax increase in 1993. Newly elected legislators were quite sensitive to the destructive impact of higher taxes. By contrast, the career politicians were immune to criticisms of the budget package.
Turnover in Congress has other taxpayer benefits. The freshman class of 1992, for example, has been pressing for reductions in such sacred cows as congressional staff (which has mushroomed by an astounding 300 percent since 1960), committees, and ridiculous perks - such as free parking at National Airport and taxpayer-subsidized meals, haircuts and political mailings. In the absence of term limits, however, even the reformist zeal of the current freshman class will peter out quickly as the newest members graduate into the permanent Washington ruling establishment.
In short, new faces breathe new life into Congress - an institution that virtually all Americans agree needs resuscitation. A recent public opinion poll shows that in a ranking of 25 professions, members of Congress rank 24th in trustworthiness - only used-car salesmen are less trusted. Given Congress's recent performance, that's highly unflattering to car salesmen.
Term limits of six years in the House and 12 in the Senate would ensure the return to a true citizen legislature. Opponents of term limits counter that limits would deprive Congress of needed policy expertise. That is a wholly unconvincing argument. After all, it is precisely the fiscal policy "experts" in Congress who have led the U.S. government to the brink of bankruptcy. It was the congressional insiders - Bob Dole, George Mitchell, Richard Gephardt, Robert Byrd, Bob Michel and others - who concocted the economically ruinous 1990 budget deal that sent the deficit spiralling to dangerous new heights.
Americans support term limits precisely because they suspect that no amateur politician could do a worse job of handling the federal purse strings than the current "professionals." And the evidence suggests that the public is absolutely right.
Stephen Moore is director of fiscal policy studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C.
by CNB